Reading & Writing Quarterly

Overcoming Learning Difficulties

ISSN: 1057-3569 (Print) 1521-0693 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urwl20

Tutoring in Critical Thinking: Using the Stases

to Scaffold High School Students’ Reading and
Writing of Persuasive Text

Wayne H. Slater & James A. Groff

To cite this article: Wayne H. Slater & James A. Groff (2017): Tutoring in Critical Thinking: Using
the Stases to Scaffold High School Students’ Reading and Writing of Persuasive Text, Reading &
Writing Quarterly, DOI: 10.1080/10573569.2017.1294516

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2017.1294516

Published online: 18 Apr 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 32

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=urwl20

Download by: [Pepperdine University] Date: 09 August 2017, At: 14:51

 READING & WRITING QUARTERLY
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2017.1294516

Tutoring in Critical Thinking: Using the Stases to Scaffold High

School Students’ Reading and Writing of Persuasive Text
Wayne H. Slater and James A. Groff
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA

ABSTRACT
Using case study research methods, we investigated the effectiveness of a
dialogic tutoring model informed by cognitive strategy instruction to
implement a problem-solving strategy using a gradual-release-of-
responsibility model of instruction situated in stasis theory. Eight minority
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 14:51 09 August 2017

10th graders participated because of their difficulties with prewriting/

invention in identifying and constructing claims and supports in the writing
of their persuasive papers. Compared to baseline scores derived from their
previous persuasive papers, the 8 participants scored higher on the
dimensions of (a) development, organization, focus, and clarity and (b)
voice but at almost the same level on the dimension of conventions. Based
on interactions with the participants, we are convinced that the stases used
as a reading and writing strategy offer a potentially powerful heuristic in
bridging the gap between the more abstract Toulmin model and the
practical and strategic challenge of filling the slots in that model.

The development of critical thinking in students is the sine qua non for formal schooling in literacy,
because students’ ability to read, write, and think critically is essential for success in the modern
world, in which the rate at which new knowledge is created is accelerating exponentially
(International Literacy Association, 2017; International Reading Association/National Council of
Teachers of English, 2012; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of
Chief State School Officers, 2010; NGSS Lead States, 2013). Although most educators agree that it
is important to teach students critical thinking habits of mind and problem-solving strategies, there
is less agreement about the way in which students’ learning to think critically is best accomplished in
the schools, especially for students in high schools (Marin & Halpern, 2011; Moseley et al., 2005;
Slater, 2004; Sternberg, 2001).
Given the central role of critical thinking in literacy acquisition, it is important to acknowledge
that U.S. students consistently underperform on national assessments of two important dimensions
foundational to critical thinking: reading persuasive text strategically and writing effective persuasive
papers. In the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading reports
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2015, 2016), 4% of eighth graders scored at the advanced
level, with 35% scoring at or above the proficient level. For twelfth graders, 6% scored at the advanced
level in reading, with 37% scoring at or above the proficient level. In the NAEP 2011 writing report
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2012), 3% of eighth graders scored at the advanced level,
with 30% scoring at or above the proficient level. For twelfth graders, 3% scored at the advanced level
in writing, with 30% scoring at or above the proficient level. With focused, dedicated teachers in mid-
dle schools and high schools making heroic efforts to teach both critical thinking and literacy, stu-
dents are still underperforming in reading persuasive text strategically and writing effective

CONTACT Wayne H. Slater wslater@umd.edu Department of Teaching & Learning, Policy & Leadership, 2311 Benjamin
Building, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-1175, USA.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis
 2 W. H. SLATER AND J. A. GROFF

persuasive papers, those foundational competencies necessary for acquiring and sustaining critical
thinking in all subject matter areas.

An instructional model for teaching persuasive reading and writing

Given students’ less than optimal NAEP performance in reading persuasive text and writing
persuasive papers, we need to consider at least one possible critical issue in teaching and school
curricula that may help to explain at least a part of this lagging student performance (Graham,
MacArthur, & Fitzgerald, 2013; MacArthur, Graham, & Fitzgerald, 2015). More recently, the teaching
of reading and writing of persuasive text at both the middle school and high school level has been
grounded in the Toulmin model of argument (Hillocks, 2011; Toulmin, 2003). Before the use of
the Toulmin, persuasive reading and writing heuristics were often grounded in analytical models
of argument on the assumption that if readers and writers analyze something, they might gain an
understanding of the parts and relationships among parts to help put it back together. The parts
of a syllogism have often been offered as the analytic pieces of information or an argument based
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 14:51 09 August 2017

on the questionable assumption that the ability to manipulate a syllogism is the same as the ability
to understand information or invent an argument (Fahnestock & Secor, 1983, 1985, 1988; Herrick,
2012; Nadeau, 1959, 1964, 1969; Slater, 2013a, 2013b). More recently, the syllogism has been replaced
by representations of the Toulmin (2003) model, the syllogism turned on its side and expanded.
Major premise, minor premise, and conclusion have become warrant, grounds, and claim, with the
addition of backing for the warrant, consideration of modality, and the possibility of counterclaim.
The Toulmin (2003) model is a flexible and powerful analytic, problem-solving heuristic for both
the reading and the writing of persuasive text. It can also function as a prereading and prewriting
(also called invention) analytical strategy. But it is situated far above the specific content of informa-
tional text and the construction of arguments for composing persuasive texts. Because of its distance
from the specific content, we can ask whether any other model can reduce the distance between classi-
fying information and categorizing arguments and the different task of inventing or creating them.
Stated differently, we want to know not just what slots need to be addressed in the Toulmin model
but much more about how we go about filling those slots for critical analysis, argument construction,
and information analysis.

A more scaffolded model for teaching persuasive reading and writing

One source for an answer for scaffolding prewriting/invention in the Toulmin model is how the
understanding and parsing of information and persuasion was taught in classical rhetoric, more
specifically, Aristotle’s (trans. 1991) On Rhetoric. However, one of the major strategies of the
classical art of parsing information and arguments was not explicitly included in On Rhetoric at
all, though about 200 years later by the time of On Oratory and The Orator Cicero referred to it
in an aside as something everyone in his audience knew about (Cicero, trans. 1976, trans. 1986,
2001; Liu, 1991). This common knowledge of the ancients was the practical art of the stases
(Fahnestock & Secor, 1983, 1985, 1988; Nadeau, 1959, 1964, 1969; Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca,
1991; Slater, 2013a, 2013b).
Although there are important differences among the ancient descriptions of the stases, essentially
they are a taxonomy, a system of classifying the kinds of questions that can be at issue in information
or a controversy (Cicero, trans. 1976, trans. 1986; Heath, 1995; Hermogenes, 2009; Quintilian, trans.
1980; Thompson, 1972). It does not matter what a particular proposition maintained in an argument,
that proposition, according to stasis theory, must be classifiable as an answer to one of a set of fun-
damental questions: (a) Does or did a thing exist or occur? (b) How can it be defined? (c) What is its
quality? and sometimes (d) whether or where it makes sense to answer or even argue one of these
questions. These questions represent, respectively, the stases of fact or conjecture, definition, quality,
and jurisdiction or objection (Fahnestock & Secor, 1983, 1985, 1988; Nadeau, 1959, 1964, 1969;
 TUTORING IN CRITICAL THINKING 3

Pullman, 1995; Slater, 2013a, 2013b). Questions of fact or conjecture in the first stasis precede those of
definition in the second, definitions in turn must be established before quality is debated, and finally
all three must be answered or assumed before an action can be recommended or taken in a specific
case. As a system of classification to support constructing meaning from information and persuasion,
the stases originated in forensic practice, in the interaction of charge and countercharge between legal
adversaries. When two conflicting parties make contradictory claims, the only formulation of the
controversy between them that is not a step in either direction, is a question. This question
pinpoints the matter at issue, the point for the reader or writer to critically analyze and, if possible,
come to a conclusion.
Stasis theory also addresses contested information or persuasion. That is, certain cases or issues
were incapable of stasis, or asystatic. Systatic issues could be decided before an impartial body but
asystatic issues could not, because the available evidence did not support contradictory claims. The
testimony might be one sided, or too balanced, reversible, inconclusive, incredible, impossible,
despicable, or simply deficient (Fahnestock & Secor, 1983, 1985, 1988; Slater, 2013a, 2013b). Other
information or persuasion situations might approach asystatic if the evidence strongly supported
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 14:51 09 August 2017

one side, if the case was useless (e.g., the defendant disappeared), or if the matter was predetermined.
Under any of these conditions, with asymmetrical arguments and no audience undecided and
unprejudiced, there could be no stasis in its purest sense.

A dialogic reading/writing tutoring model for scaffolding students’ reading and

writing of persuasive texts
The dialogic reading/writing tutoring model is an adaptation of Greenleaf, Schoenbach, Cziko, and
Mueller’s (2001) reading apprenticeship model with the addition of the writing dimension to their
validated reading model (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Duke, Pearson, Strachan, & Billman, 2011; Heath,
1983; Wharton-McDonald, 2006). The model is grounded in metacognitive conversation, a conver-
sation about the thinking processes teachers and students are engaged in as they read and write
(see Flavell, 1976, and Garner, 1994, for a description of metacognition). Teachers and students work
collaboratively in small groups to make sense of texts and writing assignments while simultaneously
engaging in a conversation about what constitutes reading and writing in specific academic disciplines
and how they are going about it. In this study, the stases served as the focus for both reading and
writing with eight participants in one English class.
The additional four dimensions of the reading/writing tutoring model are social, which involves
community building in the tutoring setting that includes developing a safe environment for students
to share their confusion and difficulties with reading texts and writing a paper based on them (Moje,
Dillion, & O’Brien, 2000); personal, which includes developing and extending students’ identities and
self-awareness as readers and writers, their purposes for reading and writing, and their own goals for
reading and writing improvement (Beers & Samuels, 1998); cognitive, which includes developing
readers’ and writers’ mental processes, including their repertoire of specific reading and writing prob-
lem-solving strategies, such as using the stases for problem solving in both reading and writing
(Kucan & Beck, 1997); and knowledge building, which includes identifying and expanding the kinds
of knowledge readers and writers bring to a text and writing assignment (Beck, McKeown, Hamilton,
& Kucan, 1997; Taylor, 1992) and then further develop through personal and social interaction with
the text, the writing assignment, and knowledge about the disciplinary conversation or social dis-
course in which the reading and writing are situated (Gee, 2011, 2014; Rabinowitz & Smith, 1998).

The present study

Grounded in the conceptualization of the stases as a problem-solving strategy for scaffolding the use
of the abstract Toulmin model for identifying and constructing claims and supports derived from
informational and persuasive text for the writing of a persuasive paper, this case study focused on
 4 W. H. SLATER AND J. A. GROFF

the following research question using our dialogic reading/writing tutoring model (Greenleaf et al.,
2001): What are the effects of using the stases as a reading and writing problem-solving strategy
for identifying and constructing claims and supports in the Toulmin model on eight on-grade-level
minority 10th-grade writers’ persuasive papers?

Method
Participants
We used a real-time data collection methodology that occurred over a 4-week period (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2011; Flyvbjerg, 2001, 2004; Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2013; Stake, 1995, 2007, 2010;
Yin, 2013). Eight 10th-grade African American students from one on-grade-level 10th-grade English
class in a suburban Maryland high school who volunteered because of their difficulties with prewrit-
ing/invention in writing participated in the study. The group consisted of five females and three
males. According to school district records, all participants read at or above grade level and were
native speakers of English.
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 14:51 09 August 2017

Procedures
During the 4-week period, we used our reading/writing tutoring model (Greenleaf et al., 2001). We
focused on three instructional models in our tutoring context: direct explanation, questioning the
author, and reciprocal teaching grounded in a gradual-release-of-responsibility model of instruction
(Duke & Pearson, 2002; Duke et al., 2011; Graves, 2004; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983; Pressley, Harris,
& Marks, 1992; Slater & Horstman, 2002). Finally, we organized participants into tutoring dyads
(groups of two) to engage in writing lab tasks.
We met with the group in the writing lab phase of their regular English class as we examined,
discussed, questioned, and applied the stases of fact, definition, quality, policy, and jurisdiction to per-
suasive readings specifically selected to exemplify the use of the stases in contemporary persuasive
discourse. We scaffolded the writing of their assigned persuasive paper using the Toulmin model
(Hillocks, 2011; Toulmin, 2003) by focusing on claims and supports and by providing individual
and small-group feedback on drafts. We also scheduled a one–class period information search session
in the school resource center in collaboration with the resource center director titled “Beyond
Wikipedia” focused on their common persuasive paper topic “Amnesty for Undocumented
Immigrants.”
The remainder of the students in the English class read the same readings and completed a
persuasive writing assignment independently, with teacher conferencing support and peer review
serving as the scaffolding for assignment completion.

Materials and tutoring sessions

The materials for the study included the following persuasive reading selections: Tieu’s “Why Violent
Video Games Are Good for Girls,” Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Hardin’s “Lifeboat
Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor,” Holcberg’s “Human Organs for Sale?,” Cole’s “Five
Myths About Immigration,” Kavanaugh’s “Amnesty? Let Us Be Vigilant and Charitable,” and Reed’s
“Why Blame Mexico?” (Barnett & Bedau, 2011; Ramage, Bean, & Johnson, 2010). Additional
materials included the stases (see the Appendix) and the Yeh (1998a, 1998b) argument writing
assessment rubric. We provide a breakdown of the day-to-day instruction next.

Day 1
We introduced participants, whose real names are not used, to the focus and purpose of our work
over the next several weeks and then introduced them to the stases and the purpose of the stasis grid
as a reading and writing guide. Near the beginning of the introduction, Talasia clearly summarized
 TUTORING IN CRITICAL THINKING 5

the participants’ initial response: “We’ve never done anything like this before.” Devon added, “This
isn’t gonna be easy. We’re gonna have to think.” We asked participants to read Tieu’s “Why Violent
Video Games Are Good for Girls” for Day 2. Time: 50 min.

Day 2
We reviewed the stases and the purpose of the stasis grid as a reading and writing guide. We then
asked the eight students to break into dyads to reread Tieu’s “Why Violent Video Games Are Good
for Girls” and use the first two categories from the grid (Fact or Opinion, Definition) to analyze the
article. After they completed the reread and stasis analysis, we met as a whole group to analyze,
question, and discuss their stasis grid analyses. As the discussion proceeded, Isiah added, “I don’t
think violent video games are good for girls.” Akira challenged, “Don’t you think girls can handle
it?” Isiah responded, “I meant to say violent games aren’t good for anyone … guys, too. All of this
is just opinion.” Akira agreed, “Yeah, that’s true, and we’re never told what ‘violence’ means. They
don’t discuss pretend killing.” We then asked participants to read Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and
Morality” for Day 3, focusing on the Fact or Opinion and the Definition categories on the stasis grid.
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 14:51 09 August 2017

Time: 50 min.

Day 3
We again reviewed the purpose and function of the stasis grid as a reading and writing guide and
answered participants’ questions. Participants broke into dyads to discuss their preliminary stasis
analyses of Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” using the first two categories from the grid
(Fact or Opinion, Definition). After they completed their dyadic discussions and comparisons of their
stasis analyses, we met as a whole group to analyze, question, and discuss their stasis grid analyses. The
moral issues discussed between haves and have-nots focused the discussion. Brie said, “It’s in the Bible.
The poor will always be with us. We need to share with the poor.” Amos summed it up, saying, “Amen.”
For Day 4, we then asked participants to read Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the
Poor,” focusing on the second two categories on the stasis grid (Quality and Value, Policy and Action)
while not ignoring the first two categories (Fact or Opinion, Definition). Time: 50 min.

Day 4
We again reviewed the purpose and function of the stasis grid as a reading and writing guide and
answered participants’ questions. Participants broke into dyads to discuss their preliminary stasis
analysis of Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor” using the second two cate-
gories from the grid (Quality and Value, Policy and Action) while not ignoring the first two categories
(Fact or Opinion, Definition). After they completed their dyadic discussions and comparisons of their
stasis analyses, we met as a whole group to analyze, question, and discuss their stasis grid analyses.
The reaction to Hardin’s argument for not helping the poor generated genuine concerns and
conflict among the participants. Akira, somewhat distressed, began, “The author is a cold dude.
Cold.” Amos countered, “No, he’s not. He’s just being honest. Do you want to starve?” Kylie then
asserted, “He provides a solution … population control.” Kylie continued, “But that’s going to take
a long time.” Akira added, “How long do we have?” Kaja responded, “That’s the problem. We don’t
know.” For Day 5, we asked participants to read Holcberg’s “Human Organs for Sale?” focusing on
the second two categories on the stasis grid (Quality and Value, Policy and Action) while not ignoring
the first two categories (Fact or Opinion, Definition). Time: 50 min.

Day 5
Once again, we reviewed the purpose and function of the stasis grid as a reading and writing guide
and answered participants’ questions. Participants broke into dyads to discuss their preliminary stasis
analysis of Holcberg’s “Human Organs for Sale?” using the second two categories from the grid
(Quality and Value, Policy and Action) while not ignoring the first two categories (Fact or Opinion,
Definition). Holcberg’s assertions for a free market in the sale and purchase of organs generated
 6 W. H. SLATER AND J. A. GROFF

consensus among the participants. Kaja began, “His arguments make sense, if everyone is willing, the
seller and the buyer.” Amos added, “He even shows how a free market will make more organs
available … even for the poor.” After they completed their dyadic discussions and comparisons of
their stasis analyses, we met as a whole group to analyze, question, and discuss their stasis grid analy-
ses. For Day 6, we asked participants to read Cole’s “Five Myths About Immigration,” focusing on all
categories on the stasis grid (Fact or Opinion, Definition, Quality and Value, Policy and Action,
Jurisdiction). Time: 50 min.

Day 6
Once again, we reviewed the purpose and function of the stasis grid as a reading and writing guide
and answered participants’ questions. Participants broke into dyads to discuss their preliminary stasis
analysis of Cole’s “Five Myths About Immigration” using all categories from the grid (Fact or
Opinion, Definition, Quality and Value, Policy and Action, Jurisdiction). After they completed their
dyadic discussions and comparisons of their stasis analyses, we met as a whole group to analyze,
question, and discuss their stasis grid analyses. Kylie initially challenged the value of immigrants:
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 14:51 09 August 2017

“They take jobs away from Americans. Just look around.” Amos countered, “Yes, they ‘take away’ jobs
most Americans won’t do. Do you want to do kitchen cleanup?” Kaja added, “He makes a case that
immigrants are good for America. Okay, all of us come from immigrants … some were forced to
come … slaves. It’s complicated!” For Day 7, we asked participants to read Kavanaugh’s “Amnesty?
Let Us Be Vigilant and Charitable” and Reed’s “Why Blame Mexico?” focusing on all categories
on the stasis grid (Fact or Opinion, Definition, Quality and Value, Policy and Action, Jurisdiction).
Time: 50 min.

Day 7
Again, we reviewed the purpose and function of the stasis grid as a reading and writing guide and
answered participants’ questions. Participants broke into dyads to discuss their preliminary stasis
analysis of Kavanaugh’s “Amnesty? Let Us Be Vigilant and Charitable” and Reed’s “Why Blame
Mexico?” focusing on all categories on the stasis grid (Fact or Opinion, Definition, Quality and
Value, Policy and Action, Jurisdiction). The participants challenged both the “conservative” (Reed)
and “liberal” (Kavanaugh) arguments presented. Kaja began, “Maria in the first essay made me feel
sorry for undocumented immigrants. She made it all real.” Akira countered, “She connected with
me, too, but I knew the author was using her. The feeling stuff can get in the way.” Talasia added,
“Reed used good points to explain that we created the problem and that we need to solve it. He didn’t
use emotions much at all.” Devon added, “Both essays together made me think, made me understand
what I didn’t understand about the issues. This is complicated, and it’s going to take a long time to
take care of the immigrant problems.” For Day 8, we asked participants to meet in the school resource
center for an information search session titled “Beyond Wikipedia” and focused on the topic
“Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants.” Time: 50 min.

Day 8
The participants met in the school resource center for an information search session titled “Beyond
Wikipedia” and focused on the topic “Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants.” The stasis grid was intro-
duced as a way to take notes on their research reading as preparation for writing their argument
papers. For Day 9, we asked participants to bring their preliminary bibliographies, stasis grid notes,
and draft thesis statements to class. Time: 50 min.

Day 9
We discussed stasis grid note taking, the characteristics of good thesis statements, and effective claims
that support thesis statements. Participants worked in dyads on their thesis statements and draft
claims. All of the participants agreed with Amos when he said, “Writing good claims is just hard.
Hard. You gotta think and focus. Talasia and the grid helped me a lot and saved me time.” For
 TUTORING IN CRITICAL THINKING 7

Day 10, we informed participants that they would be working on their stasis grid note taking, thesis
statements, claims, and supports as they composed their rough drafts for their argument papers.
Time: 50 min.

Day 10
Participants worked in dyads on their stasis grid note taking, thesis statements, claims, and supports as
they composed their rough drafts for their argument papers. We worked with and provided feedback
to dyads and individual participants. At this point, a typical tutor–participant exchange focused on the
construction of claims. Amos asked, “How do I find one more claims for my thesis?” We responded,
“Reread the ‘five myths’ article, study your stasis grid, and you will probably find your additional claim
for your thesis. Check back.” Later, when checking back and discussing the goodness of fit of the
additional constructed claim, Amos expressed his relief succinctly: “Nailed it!” Based on need,
participants were allowed to use class time to research in the resource center. For Day 11, we informed
participants that they would continue working on their stasis grid note taking, thesis statements,
claims, and supports as they composed their rough drafts for their argument papers. Time: 50 min.
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 14:51 09 August 2017

Day 11
Participants continued work in their dyads on their stasis grid note taking, thesis statements, claims,
and supports as they composed their rough drafts for their argument papers. We worked with and
provided feedback to dyads and individual participants. Supports (evidence) for claims emerged as
an important concern, especially determining fact from opinion. At this point in the composing
process, a typical tutor–participant exchange focused on selecting evidence to support claims. Brie
noted, “I am using an opinion for support from my [stasis] grid, but I want my reader to know
it’s an opinion.” We responded, “Good thinking! Check back with the source and consider using a
quotation or consider paraphrasing making sure to mention the source’s name (with reference).
Check back when you’re ready.” Brie checked back, “The paraphrase works,” making the case that
a quotation would overemphasize the content. We asked, “Why?” Brie responded, “The evidence is
good, but the writing isn’t interesting enough to deserve a quote.” We concluded, “Good analysis.”
Again, based on need, participants were allowed to use class time to research in the resource center.
For Day 12, we informed participants that they would continue working on their stasis grid note
taking, thesis statements, claims, and supports as they composed their rough drafts for their argument
papers. Time: 50 min.

Day 12
Participants continued work in their dyads on their stasis grid note taking, thesis statements, claims,
and supports as they composed their rough drafts for their argument papers. We worked with and
provided feedback to dyads and individual participants. In their dyad, Talasia and Amos asked about
the Policy and Action and Jurisdiction dimensions of the stasis grid: “Don’t these two go together?
Aren’t they the same thing?” We responded, “Let’s look at the stasis grid explanation again. ‘Policy
and Action’ focus more on what needs to be done while ‘Jurisdiction’ focuses on who or what needs
to do it.” Amos responded, “Okay, that helps. For immigration for the U.S., it’s the Congress to cover
everyone, at least for my topic, allowing undocumented immigrants to get jobs with benefits.” We
responded, “What are the chances of Congress making changes to our laws in this area?” Talasia said,
“Not much right now. But we need to make the case for change.” We concluded, “Review your stasis
grid notes and make your case.” Again, based on need, participants were allowed to use class time to
research in the resource center. For Day 13, we announced that their persuasive paper rough drafts
were due and asked them to bring two hard copies to class. Time: 50 min.

Day 13
Participants brought their rough drafts to class, exchanged drafts in their dyads for review, suggested
revisions, and provided comments on the Yeh (1998a, 1998b) persuasive writing assessment rubric
 8 W. H. SLATER AND J. A. GROFF

(used by the school district). We worked with dyads and individual participants. Participants’ positive
comments on using the stasis grid for the construction of thesis statements, claims, and supports were
unanimous. Kaja began, “The stasis grid made me think for a change!” Devon added, “The grid
helped me think while I was reading and writing.” Akira asserted, “This is something I will use in
the future.” Isiah asked, “Why haven’t we used the stasis grid before? This shouldn’t be new for
us.” Brie summed up her experience, “I have never read and written this carefully. Taking notes
on the grid helped me to question my own thinking.” Amos concurred, “Once I got it, it made
my reading and writing easier.” Talasia added, “The grid just makes sense for reading and writing.
It gave me a direction.” Kylie concluded, “It took me a while, but when I understood the purpose
of the stasis grid, I understood information better than before.” For Day 16, we announced that final
drafts were due and should reflect feedback provided. Time: 50 min.

Day 16
Participants submitted the final drafts of their persuasive papers. For Day 18, we announced that we
would return their papers with comments and grades. In addition, we announced that we would
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 14:51 09 August 2017

discuss their final drafts as a group. Time: 50 min.

Day 18
We discussed the persuasive essay results with the participants and informed them that they could
revise their papers for a higher grade. The revised papers were due in five class days. Time: 50 min.

Validity and reliability

The validity of the Yeh persuasive writing assessment rubric is grounded in established writing
research and assessment (Yeh, 1998a, 1998b). We selected this validated, analytic rubric because it
is most closely aligned with the dimensions included in the stases.
We established assessment reliability by using two independent raters for the persuasive writing
assessment (Yeh, 1998a, 1998b). Discrepancies in coding were resolved through discussion. The
interrater reliability for the persuasive writing assessment was 82%.

Results
Grounded in the conceptualization of the stases as a problem-solving strategy for scaffolding the use
of the abstract Toulmin model for identifying and constructing claims and supports derived from
informational and persuasive text for the writing of a persuasive paper, this case study focused on
the following research question using a reading/writing tutoring model (Greenleaf et al., 2001): What
are the effects of using the stases as a reading and writing problem-solving strategy for identifying and
constructing claims and supports in the Toulmin model on eight on-grade-level African American
10th-grade writers’ persuasive papers? Here we report the results of the Yeh (1998a, 1998b) persuasive
writing assessment of the eight participants’ final drafts.
Tables 1–3 present results of the persuasive writing assessments for the dimensions of
development, voice, and conventions. We obtained the baseline scores reported in Tables 1–3 from

Table 1. Mean scores on development, organization, focus, and clarity.

Condition N M SD
Baseline 8 3.65 1.83
Stasis 8 4.01 1.63
Note. Scoring: 1 ¼ no primary claim through 6 ¼ definite, well-qualified claim or proposal; strong, developed, well-
organized supporting arguments; responds to major objections and alternatives; key terms, ideas, and connections
are defined, elaborated, and illustrated to avoid misinterpretations; sentences build on each other through
connecting words or ideas; wording is clear, concise, and consistent.
 TUTORING IN CRITICAL THINKING 9

Table 2. Mean scores on voice.

Condition N M SD
Baseline 8 3.01 1.72
Stasis 8 3.83 1.91
Note. Scoring: 1 ¼ no voice (credibility or emotional appeal) through 6 ¼ mature voice—
defined as appropriate, sophisticated, audience-centered vivid language full of conviction.

Table 3. Mean scores on conventions.

Condition N M SD
Baseline 8 3.96 1.46
Stasis 8 3.87 1.67
Note. Scoring: 1 ¼ continual errors in usage, grammar, punctuation, and spelling through 6 ¼ virtually
error free.

a Yeh (1998a, 1998b) persuasive writing assessment of participants’ previous persuasive writing
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 14:51 09 August 2017

assignment.
As can be seen in Table 1, on the dimension of development, organization, focus, and clarity, the
eight participants scored higher in the stasis condition compared to baseline. More specifically,
participants in the stasis condition scored 4.01 compared to their baseline score of 3.56.
As shown in Table 2, on the dimension of voice, the eight participants scored higher in the stasis
condition compared to baseline. That is, participants scored 3.83 in the stasis condition compared to
their baseline score of 3.01.
Finally, as shown in Table 3, on the dimension of conventions, the participants scored lower on
conventions in the stasis condition compared to baseline. Participants scored 3.87 in the stasis con-
dition compared to their baseline score of 3.96. We discuss these results for our eight participants and
the implications of these results in the Discussion.

Discussion
A substantial grounding in critical thinking is central to the goals for instruction in formal schooling
and, more specifically, literacy instruction. Two important dimensions, reading informational and
persuasive text strategically and writing effective persuasive papers, are foundational to critical
thinking across subject matter domains. That being said, U.S. secondary students consistently
underperform on NAEP reading and writing measures that assess their competency in the reading
and writing of informational and persuasive texts (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012,
2015, 2016). We identified one possible dimension that might explain, at least in part, students’
lagging performance in reading and writing. That dimension is the use in middle and high schools
of the highly abstract Toulmin (2003) model in the teaching of reading and writing without the
necessary scaffolding to support its use. In this case study using a reading/writing tutoring model,
we focused on the following research question: What are the effects of using the stases as a reading
and writing problem-solving strategy for identifying and constructing claims and supports in the
Toulmin model on eight on-grade-level African American 10th-grade writers’ persuasive papers?
Using a dialogic reading/writing tutoring model for a period of approximately 20 days, we
provided student-centered, dialogic instruction in the use of the stases as a reading and writing
strategy for identifying and constructing claims and supports in the Toulmin model and scaffolding
participants’ preparation of rough and final drafts of their persuasive papers.
As the results indicate, compared to baseline, the eight participants scored higher on the dimen-
sions of (a) development, organization, focus, and clarity and (b) voice but at almost the same level,
again compared to baseline, on the dimension of conventions. In many respects, the intervention
means are in the desired direction. At the same time, it is important to note that the baseline Yeh
(1998a, 1998b) persuasive writing rubric scores obtained from the participants were derived from
 10 W. H. SLATER AND J. A. GROFF

persuasive papers that were written essentially without significant instructor scaffolding, with the
participants being allowed to select from a menu of prewriting (invention) strategies that included
webbing, graphic organizers, and brainstorming. In addition, for the baseline papers, the participants
were allowed to select their own persuasion topic, and the teacher provided no information search
session. Given the major differences in prewriting strategies and instructional approaches between
the baseline argument assignment and the case study intervention assignment, it may be somewhat
of a stretch to compare these two sets of persuasive papers.
In addition, explaining the mean scores of the intervention cases is further complicated by the
small number of participants (eight); the student-centered, dialogic reading/writing tutoring model
used for instruction in using the stases as a reading and writing information and persuasion analysis
and prewriting/invention strategy; the information search session; the common writing topic selected
by the participants (amnesty for undocumented immigrants); and the scaffolding we provided during
the drafting phase of writing the persuasive papers. Each of these factors alone or in combination
could potentially account for the mean differences. All of this is to say that we need to be somewhat
cautious in making any definitive assertions based on the present findings (Flyvbjerg, 2001, 2004;
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 14:51 09 August 2017

Stake, 1995, 2007, 2010; Yin, 2013).

Based on interactions with the participants in this study during the reading/writing tutoring
sessions, we are favorably disposed to the notion that the stases used as a reading and writing strategy
for the identification, classification, and construction of information and arguments offer a potentially
powerful heuristic in bridging the gap between the more abstract Toulmin (2003) model and the prac-
tical and strategic challenge of filling the slots in that model (Fahnestock & Secor, 1983, 1985, 1988;
Slater, 2013a, 2013b). Throughout the stasis dialogic tutoring sessions, participants remarked that
they had never been taught how to read informational and persuasive text; how to identify, parse,
and classify information and arguments in those texts; how to judge the validity and reliability of
information and arguments; and how to apply critical thinking analyses to their persuasive papers,
much less analyze and question information and arguments in their information searches. They also
commented that they had rarely been asked to challenge assertions made in texts and relentlessly
mentioned how hard it was to construct their own topics and questions related to any writing topic.
As was mentioned earlier, all eight of the participants in this case study explicitly identified the
benefits they were convinced they derived from using the stases in reading informational and persuas-
ive text and in constructing theses, claims, and supports for the assigned paper. Keep in mind that the
participants in this study volunteered for this tutoring initiative and could have withdrawn at any
time without penalty to the ongoing class writing workshop. To provide further support for the
efficacy of the stases reading and writing analytic strategy used in the present study, we offer a
summative comment on the stasis tutoring experience that is representative of the reactions of all
of the participants:
When you took us through the stases with the articles at the beginning, it was hard. Very hard.
My head hurt. I had to keep looking back and rereading parts of each article to try to figure out
which stasis an idea or claim went in. I never did that before. Then I realized that sometimes
more than one stasis was possible. Yeah, it was a pain putting stuff in stasis categories. The
rereading and then reading again! But I kinda got used to it. Putting my notes in the different
categories made the writing of my paper easier. Not really easy, but I had done so much
thinking before I wrote and discussed problems with Akira and you. Yeah, it saved me time
and made me think in advance. Why haven’t we used the stasis grid before?
Even taking into account the possibility of participants telling us what they thought we wanted to
hear, we are convinced from our independent observations of and interactions with the participants
that they found the stasis intervention a helpful, strategic, and productive experience for inventing
arguments and scaffolding tutoring discourse (Flyvbjerg, 2001, 2004; Stake, 1995, 2007, 2010; Yin,
2013). Throughout the duration of this study, we never experienced any reticence on participants’
part to share their candid opinions with us.
 TUTORING IN CRITICAL THINKING 11

This case study contributes some insights into the potential robustness of the stases as a reading
and writing strategy to identify, classify, and construct claims and supports for use in the construction
of persuasive discourse grounded in the Toulmin model. Further research will help us better
understand and define the power and dimensions of the stases as a critical reading and writing,
comprehension, and composing heuristic (Beard, Riley, Myhill, & Nystrand, 2009; Graham et al.,
2013; MacArthur et al., 2015; Vygotsky, 1978).
In conclusion, the stases offer the potential for a powerful critical thinking, problem-solving
framework for readers and writers to gather and construct knowledge and arguments and to achieve
consensus on claims and supports in one or more of the stases not only in English classes but in all sub-
ject matter classes. In ancient Rome, if lawyers could not agree with the information in one of the stases,
the argument stopped and plaintiffs attempted to agree (achieve stasis or find common ground) within
the disputed information. In critical thinking in general and more specifically in reading and writing
informational and persuasive texts, an important though idealistic goal is to achieve stasis (or common
ground) with the issue readers and writers are investigating in order to construct effective, strategic, and
valid arguments in written discourse that allow us to reason together to potentially achieve a basis for
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 14:51 09 August 2017

mutual interest or agreement and some level of consensus on complex, contested issues.

References
Aristotle. (1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (G. A. Kennedy Trans.). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Barnet, S., & Bedau, H. (2011). From critical thinking to argument (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Beard, R., Riley, J., Myhill, D., & Nystrand, M. (Eds.). (2009). Sage handbook of writing development. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Hamilton, R. L., & Kucan, L. (1997). Questioning the author: An approach for enhancing
student engagement with text. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Beers, K., & Samuels, B. (1998). Into focus: Understanding and creating middle school readers. Norwood, NJ: Guilford
Press.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2011). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods
(International ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Cicero. (1976). De inventione, De optimo genere, Topica [On invention, best kind of orator topics] (H. M. Hubbell Trans.).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cicero. (1986). Cicero on oratory and orators (J. S. Watson Trans.). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Cicero. (2001). On the ideal orator (J. M. May & J. Wisse Trans.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E.
Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 203–242). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. K. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching
reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction
(4th ed., pp. 51–93). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (1983). Grounds for argument: Stasis theory and the topoi. In D. Zarefsky M. O. Sillars &
J. Rhodes (Eds.), Proceedings of the third summer conference on argumentation (pp. 135–146). Annandale, VA:
Speech Communication Association.
Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (1985). Toward a modern version of stasis. In C. Kneupper (Ed.), Oldspeak/newspeak:
Rhetorical transformations (pp. 217–226). Arlington, VA: Rhetoric Society of America.
Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (1988). The stases in scientific and literary argument. Written Communication, 5, 427–443.
doi:10.1177/0741088388005004002
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive dimensions of problem-solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence
(pp. 231–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter (S. Sampson Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Five misunderstandings about case study research. In C. Seale G. Gobo J. F. Gubrium & D.
Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (p. 390–405). London, UK: Sage.
Garner, R. (1994). Metacognition and executive control. In R. B. Ruddell M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical
models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 715–732). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Gee, J. P. (2011). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2014). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice. Champaign, IL: Common Ground.
 12 W. H. SLATER AND J. A. GROFF

Graham, S., MacArthur, C. A., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). (2013). Best practices in writing instruction (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Graves, M. F. (2004). Theories and constructs that have made a significant difference in adolescent literacy: But have the
potential to produce still more positive benefits. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and
practice (pp. 433–452). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Greenleaf, C. L., Schoenbach, R., Cziko, C., & Mueller, F. L. (2001). Apprenticing adolescent readers to academic
literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 71(1), 79–130. doi:10.17763/haer.71.1.q811712577334038
Heath, M. (1995). Hermogenes on issues: Strategies of argument in later Greek rhetoric. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Hermogenes. (2009). On types of style (C. W. Wooten Trans.). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Herrick, J. A. (2012). The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction (5th ed.). New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (2011). Teaching argument writing, grades 6–12: Supporting claims with relevant evidence and clear
reasoning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
International Literacy Association. (2017). Standards for the preparation of literacy professionals 2017. Newark, DE:
Author.
International Reading Association/National Council of Teachers of English. (2012, November). Standards for the
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 14:51 09 August 2017

English language arts. Newark, DE, and Urbana, IL: Authors.

Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social
interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67, 271–299. doi:10.3102/00346543067003271
Liu, Y. (1991). Aristotle and the stasis theory: A re-examination. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 21, 53–59. doi:10.1080/
02773949109390908
MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of writing research (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Marin, L. M., & Halpern, D. F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction
produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(2011), 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2010.08.002
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moje, E. B., Dillon, D. R., & O’Brien, D. G. (2000). Re-examining the roles of the learner, the text, and the context in
secondary literacy. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 165–180. doi:10.1080/00220670009598705
Moseley, D., Baumfield, V., Elliott, J., Gregson, M., Higgins, S., Miller, J., & Newton, D. P. (2005). Frameworks for
thinking: A handbook for teaching and learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Nadeau, R. (1959). Classical systems of stases in Greek: Hermagoras to Hermogenes. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine
Studies, 2, 51–71.
Nadeau, R. (1964). Hermogenes’ on stasis: A translation with an introduction. Speech Monographs, 31, 361–424.
Nadeau, R. (1969). Some Aristotelian and stoic influences on the theory of stasis. Speech Monographs, 26, 419–425.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012–470). Washington,
DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The nation’s report card: 2015 mathematics and reading assessment
(NCES 2015–136). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). The nation’s report card: 2015 mathematics and reading at grade 12
(NCES 2016–108). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common
core state standards. Washington, DC: Authors.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies
Press.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 8, 317–344.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1991). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver
Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published in French in 1958)
Pressley, M., Harris, K. R., & Marks, M. B. (1992). But good strategy instructors are constructivists! Educational
Psychology Review, 4, 3–31. doi:10.1007/bf01322393
Pullman, G. L. (1995). Deliberative rhetoric and forensic stasis: Reconsidering the scope and function of an ancient
rhetorical heuristic in the aftermath. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 25, 223–230. doi:10.1080/02773949509391045
Quintilian. (1980). Institutio oratoria [Institutes of oratory] (H. E. Butler Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Rabinowitz, P. J., & Smith, M. (1998). Authorizing readers: Resistance and respect in the teaching of literature. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
 TUTORING IN CRITICAL THINKING 13

Ramage, J. D., Bean, J. C., & Johnson, J. (Eds.). (2010). Writing arguments: A rhetoric with readings. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Education.
Slater, W. H. (2004). Teaching English from a literacy perspective: The goal of high literacy for all students. In T. L.
Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 40–58). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Slater, W. H. (2013a, March). Scaffolding argument development: Using the stases as a reading and writing problem-
solving strategy with minority tenth-graders. Paper presented at the Oxford Education Research Symposium, Oxford, UK.
Slater, W. H. (2013b, April). Using the stases as a reading and writing problem-solving strategy with on-grade level tenth-
graders: Eight case studies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Slater, W. H., & Horstman, F. R. (2002). Teaching reading and writing to struggling middle school and high school
students: The case for reciprocal teaching. Preventing School Failure, 46(4), 163–166. doi:10.1080/10459880209604416
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. E. (2007, April). Reconsidering generalization and theory in case study research. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Sternberg, R. (2001). Teaching problem solving as a way of life. In A. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for
teaching thinking (3rd. ed., pp. 451–454). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Taylor, B. M. (1992). Text structure, comprehension, and recall. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 14:51 09 August 2017

has to say about reading instruction (2nd ed., pp. 220–228). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Thompson, W. N. (1972). Stasis in Aristotle’s rhetoric. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58, 134–141.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wharton-McDonald, R. (2006). The need for increased comprehension instruction. In M. Pressley (Ed.), Reading
instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (pp. 293–346). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Yeh, S. S. (1998a). Empowering education: Teaching argumentative writing to cultural minority middle-school students.
Research in the Teaching of English, 33, 49–84.
Yeh, S. S. (1998b). Validation of a scheme for assessing argumentative writing of middle school students. Assessing
Writing, 5(1), 123–150. doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)80009-9
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Appendix
The five stases
Fact or opinion
. Did something happen?
. What are the facts?
. Is there a problem/issue?
. How did it begin, and what are its causes?
. What changed to create the problem/issue?
. Can it be changed?
It may also be useful to ask critical questions of research and conclusions:
. Where did we obtain our data, and are these sources reliable?
. How do we know they’re reliable?

Definition
. What is the nature of the problem/issue?
. What exactly is the problem/issue?
. What kind of a problem/issue is it?
. To what larger class of things or events does it belong?
. What are its parts, and how are they related?
It may also be useful to ask critical questions of research and conclusions:
. Who/what is influencing our definition of this problem/issue?
. How/why are these sources/beliefs influencing our definition?
 14 W. H. SLATER AND J. A. GROFF

Quality and value

. Is it a good thing or a bad thing?
. How serious is the problem/issue?
. Whom might it affect (stakeholders)?
. What happens if we don’t do anything?
. What are the costs of solving the problem/issue?
It may also be useful to ask critical questions of research and conclusions:
. Who/what is influencing our determination of the seriousness of this problem/issue?
. How/why are these sources/beliefs influencing our determination?

Policy and action

. Should action be taken?
. Who should be involved in helping to solve the problem/address the issue?
. What should be done about this problem?
. What needs to happen to solve this problem/address this issue?
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 14:51 09 August 2017

It may also be useful to ask critical questions of research and conclusions:

. Who/what is influencing our determination of what to do about this problem/issue?
. How/why are these sources/beliefs influencing our determination?

Jurisdiction
. What is the right venue, agency, or authority for this action?
. Who should be in charge?
. Who dictates what is right and wrong?
. Who is the authority?
. What does the authority say?
. Why should we trust this venue, agency, or authority for action?
. Who or what is influencing this venue, agency, or authority?